The Taoist Influence on Hua-yen Buddhism:
A Case of the Sinicization of Buddhism in China

Kang-nam Oh
Professor of Religious Studies,
University of Regina

Chung-Haw Buddhist Journal
No.13.2 (May 2000)
pp.277-297

Copyright 2000 The Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies

p.277

Summary

The religio-philosophical system presented by
the Hua-yen Buddhist school of China was characteristically “Chinese” in the sense that it
was not merely extensions of Indian Buddhist ideas but the reinterpretations and
restatements of Buddhist thought within distinctively Chinese modes of thought and
expression. Hua-yen, in this sense, was a “sinicized”
Buddhism.

This paper examines
the philosophical background of this “sinicization
process.” The paper argues that the Taoist
philosophy was one, possibly the most important, influence on this process. The
paper tries to prove this by exploring specifically four major Hua-yen concepts derived
from the Taoist tradition: hsuan (mystery), “returning
to the source,” t’i-yung (essence and function), and li-shih (noumenon and
phenomenon).

I. Introduction

Buddhism, which was first introduced into China
around the first century C.E., developed through various stages of interaction with
traditional Chinese culture before it finally emerged as an integral part of the Chinese
religious tradition. After the periods of preparation (ca. 65~317 C.E.) and of
domestication (ca. 317~589), Buddhism came to the stage of “independent growth” in the
Sui-T’ang period (589~900).[1]In this period there flourished such schools as the T’ien-t’ai (Lotus or
Saddharmapu.n.darika), the Hua-yen (Flower Garland or Avata^msaka), the Fa-hsiang
(Dharma-Character or Dharmalak.sana), the Ching-t’u
(Pure Land or Sukhavatii), and the Ch’an (Meditation
or Dhyaana).[2]The systems of thought of most of these schools were
characteristically “Chinese” in the sense that they were not mere extensions of Indian ideas but
the reinterpretations and restatements of Buddhist doctrines within distinctively Chinese
modes of thought and expression to meet the intellectual and spiritual needs of the
particular times and space.[3]Among these schools, however, the
Hua-yen is generally considered not only as the apex of Buddhism,[4]but also as “the greatest

p.279

adaptation of Mahaayaana
Buddhism among the various philosophical systems organized by the Chinese.”[5]

The purpose of this
paper is, therefore, to examine some of the salient features of Hua-yen Buddhism as an
example of the Sinicization of Buddhism in sixth and seventh century China. Needless to
say, there must have been various religious, intellectual, and socio-political elements
which conduced to the Sinicization process of Hua-yen Buddhist philosophy.[6]In this paper, however, attention will be focused exclusively on
Taoist philosophy as a possible indigenous spiritual influence on the formation of Hua-yen
thought.[7]

p.280

II. The Basic Doctrine of Hua-yen

To have a general background for the discussion
of the Taoist influence on Hua-yen, it would seem appropriate to give a brief sketch of
Hua-yen philosophy.[8]The central teaching of the Hua-yen school is the dharmadhaatu
(fa-chieh) doctrine, or more specifically, the dharmadhaatu-pratiityasamutpaada (fa-chieh
yuan-ch’i). The Sanskrit term dharmadhaatu,
which is a compound consisting of dharma and dhaatu, has been variously translated as “the Element of the Elements,” “The Realm of All Elements,” “the Dharma-Element,” the “Reality or Essence of Dharmas,” “the Noumenal Ground of Phenomena,” “the Essence of Reality,” “the
Ultimate Reality,” “Supreme Reality,” “Totality,” and so on.[9]It is, in short, a designation of the “Ground of all Being.”
The term pratiityasamutpaada means “dependent
co-origination.”

This idea of
dharmadhaatu-pratiityasamutpaada which was

p.281

originally found in the
Avata^msaka-suutra or Hua-yen ching,[10]was fully developed
by the Hua-yen school into a systematic doctrine palatable to the Chinese intellectual
taste. The dharmadhaatu doctrine[11]can be said to have
been, by and large, set forth by Tu-shun (557~640 C.E.), formulated by Chih-yen (602~668),
systematized by Fa-tsang (643~712), and elucidated by Ch’eng-kuan (ca. 737~838) and Tsung-mi (780~841).

The foundation of
the dharmadhaatu doctrine was definitely laid in a short treatise, Fa-chieh-kuan-men (The
Gate of Insight into the Dharmadhaatu),[12]which has been
ascribed to Tu-shun, the first patriarch of the school.[13]In
this “fundamental text” it is recommended to have “threefold
insight” into the dharmadhaatu, i.e.,

p.282

the insight into 1) the “true Emptiness,” 2) the “non-obstruction of li and shih” or noumenon and phenomena, and 3) “all-pervading and all-embracing [nature of phenomena]. This means
that in our meditative insight we have to intuit not only the two aspects of dharmadhaatu,
form (ruupa) and emptiness (`suunyataa), in their non-obstructive interrelationship but we
have also to see the dharmadhaatu in terms of li and shih or the noumenal and the
phenomenal in their “interfusion and dissolution,
coexistence and annihilation, adversity and harmony”[14]and their mutual identification. Even further, we are advised
to realize ultimately that “shih, being identified
with li, are interfusing, interpervading, mutually including, and interpermeating without
obstruction.”[15]It is
said here that all the phenomenal things, having been endowed with the quality of the
noumenal, are now complete in themselves, and thus they are now interrelating with each
other. In this relationship, it is further said, the universal and the particular, the
broad and the narrow, and the like, have no impeding boundaries but are freely
interpenetrating each other without obstruction or hindrance whatsoever.

This last insight
into the universal and inexhaustible interrelatedness of all the dharmas in the
dharmadhaatu was formulated as the “ten mysteries”[16]by the second patriarch Chih-yen in
his Hua-yen I-ch’eng shih-hsuan-men (The Ten
Mysteries of the One Vehicle of the Hua-yen).[17]These
ten mysteries or principles, according to Chih-yen, point to the Hua-yen truth that the
myriad things in the universe freely interrelate with each other without losing their own
identities. Each and every manifested object of the dharmadhaatu includes simultaneously
all the qualities of the other objects within itself. Consequently all the qualities

p.283

such as hidden and
manifest, pure and mixed, one and many, subtle and minute, cause and effect, big and
small, time and eternity, and the rest are all simultaneously and completely compatible in
any given dharma.

Fa-tsang, the third
patriarch and greatest systematizer of the school, having inherited this basic teaching of
Chih-yen, organized it within his finely refined theoretical system.[18]Whereas Chih-yen’s “ten mysteries” had been
simply set forth without elaboration, Fa-tsang incorporated the truth of the ten mysteries
in the web of his grand system. It is now no longer an isolated set of meditational items,
but becomes part of an organic structure substantiated in terms of “emptiness and existence,” “having
power and lacking power,” and so on. It is also by
him that the cardinal twin principle of Hua-yen philosophy “mutual identification” and “interpenetration” is first
clearly systematized in connection with ideas of “essence
and function” (t’i-yung).

It was the fourth
patriarch of the school, Ch’eng-kuan, who built up
the so-called theory of “four-fold dharmadhaatu”
upon the basis of the teachings handed down by his
predecessors, which subsequently became known as the standard formula of the Hua-yen
dharmadhaatu doctrine. In his Fa-chieh-hsuan-ching (The Mirror of the Mystery of
Dharmadhaatu), the commentary on Tu-shun’s
Fa-chieh-kuan-men, Ch’eng-kuan suggests that the
dharmadhaatu can be seen either as 1) shih dharmadhaatu, 2) li dharmadhaatu, 3)

p.284

dharmadhaatu of
non-obstruction of li and shih, or 4) dharmadhaatu of non-obstruction of shih and shih.[19]According to his explanation, the first one is the dharmadhaatu
particularized or phenomenalized into innumerable concrete things. The second one, li
dharmadhaatu, is the “essential” aspect of the dharmadhaatu which is the foundation of all the
manifested phenomena. The third one is the aspect of the dharmadhaatu in which phenomena
and noumenon interfuse each other. The fourth dimension of the dharmadhaatu, according to
Ch’eng-kuan, points to the truth of the “ten mysteries,” which teaches
basically the twin principle of interrelationship of all phenomena: mutual identification
and interpenetration. The dharmadhaatu doctrine of Tsung-mi is more or less similar to
that of Ch’eng-kuan.

These patriarchs
have emphasized throughout their writings that everything in the universe is related to
each other. Apart from this relatedness, or what is technically called
pratiityasamutpaada, nothing has an existence of its own. Everything should be viewed with
regard to all possible relationships with all possible things. Every possible level
and every available dimension should be applied to a certain thing. In other words, any
given object in the world is subject to infinitely numerous and different frames of
reference. Nothing can have a fixed, intrinsic, or static value nor be judged by a
determined standard. Everything in the phenomenal order is fluid, flexible, and relative.

The same step is too
high for a child and at the same time too low for an adult. The same step is also too wide
for a child and too narrow for an adult. The same step has, therefore, according to
Hua-yen, the qualities of being high and low, wide and narrow, and so on, all
simultaneously. The truth of the “ten
mysteries” lies in its pointing out these
relativistic or relationalistic qualities of all dharmas. All dharmas are free from being
either narrow or broad;

p.285

they are both narrow and
broad, and many more without obstruction. This is the so-called mystery of “the sovereignty and non-obstruction of the broad and the narrow.” The truth of “the
perfect and brilliant compatibility of the qualities of being both the primary and the
secondary” conclusively affirms this relativistic
outlook of Hua-yen philosophy.

In such a
transcendental insight, there can be no room for dogmatic assertions concerning any
particular thing. A theoretical polarity of good and bad, right and wrong, happy and
unhappy, profane and sacred, and the like is completely removed.[20]Static views (d.r.s.ti) or dogmas have no place in such a flexible
and comprehensive attitude toward dharmas.

Those things which
have been seen by common-sense knowledge as essentially distinctive, categorically
different, and spatiotemporally separate from each other are, here in this Hua-yen
meditative intuition of a higher level, completely dissolved into the totalistic harmony
of the dharmadhaatu of non-obstruction and non-hindrance. There is only “the one unique reality” in
which every fixed distinction, discrimination or particularization has no room.

Hua-yen philosophy
is in this sense a philosophy of liberation which sets a person free from all rigid and
stubborn dogmatism, prejudice, and preconception. The restraint and bondage of
localization, categorization, artificial restriction, conceptual construction, sentimental
bias, provincialism, intolerant self-centeredness, and worldly attachment, are all broken
down and there remains only absolute spiritual freedom which keeps one from partial
judgement but leads to a perfect and round perspective of things.

p.286

III. Some of the Taoist Influence on Hua-yen

It is a well-known fact that since its
introduction into China, Buddhism has had a close relationship with Taoism, more
specifically with Neo-Taoism. As a result of this there developed the method of “matching the concepts” of
Buddhism and Taoism, which was known as ko-i.[21]By
this method of analogy Buddhists adopted many Taoist terms and ideas to explain their
concepts. Although this somewhat superficial and arbitrary method of matching was
discarded as useless and misleading after the great translator and scholar Kumaarajiiva
arrived in 401 C.E., Taoist influence on Buddhism in general was not, and could not be,
totally eliminated.

As a good example of
the influence of Taoism on Buddhism during its early stage in China, one may take the
development of the so-called “Six Houses and Seven
Schools.” Even though they were dealing with
the Buddhist concept of Emptiness (`suunyataa), most of their vocabularies were based on
Neo-Taoist terms. Just as the fundamental problem of the Neo-Taoists was the question of
being and non-being, these schools, attuned to this line of thought, called themselves “School of Original Non-being,” “Variant School of Original Non-being,” “School of Non-being of Mind,” and
so on.[22]Consequently they were aptly known as the “Buddho-Taoists.”

However, this is not
the place to trace such examples of Taoist influence throughout Buddhist history.
For, although the close

p.287

contact between the Taoist
and Buddhist, which had an important impact on the development of Chinese Buddhist thought
in general, can be an interesting topic to investigate,[23]our
task here is only to see the concrete and most discernible Taoist influence specifically
on the Hua-yen thought in order to clarify a particular case of Sinicization of Buddhism.

A) The Idea of
Hsuan

The first Taoist element that can easily be
pointed to in the Hua-yen system is the idea of hsuan. For Hua-yen the hsuan or
mystery, profundity, deep truth, darkness, subtleness and the like, is the key word used
to represent the whole truth of the dharmadhaatu. Chih-yen uses the word hsuan in the
title of his magnum opus, Hua-yen ching Sou-hsuan-chi (The Record of Probing the Hsuan of
the Avata^msaka-suutra).[24]This implies that the aim of his
probing into the Avata^msaka-suutra was to get into the hsuan mystery. Fa-tsang’s monumental commentary on the Avata^msaka also has the title T’an-hsuan-chi. And Ch’eng-kuan
also calls his commentary on the Fa-chieh-kuan-men “Fa-chieh-hsuan-ching.” Above all, the cardinal doctrine in connection with the
dharmadhaatu has been throughout these patriarchs of the Hua-yen school, the “ten mysteries” or ten hsuans.

As is well-known,
the idea of hsuan is found in the first chapter of Lao Tzu’s Tao-te-ching in connection with Tao and its two aspects of being
and non-being.At the end of the chapter it is said:

They
both may be called the mystery [hsüan];
It is the mystery of mysteries,

The phrase “mystery of mysteries,” sometimes
rephrased as the “manifold mystery,” was especially cherished as the central term characterizing the
inexpressible Tao.[26]This phrase was so important that around the fifth century C.E.
there existed a school named “manifold mystery”
in the Lao-Chuang branch of Taoism.[27]Moreover, the Neo-Taoist philosophy itself was called the “Learning of Mystery” (hsuan-hsuah)
in classical times.[28]

This important idea
was adopted to designate the Buddhist truth of the Ultimate by many Buddhists, such as
Seng-chao (C.E. 384~414), Chih-tsang (549~623), Yuan-hsiao (617~686) and Li T’ung-hsuan (635~730).[29]In
view of these facts, it is unlikely that the Hua-yen philosophers could have escaped such
a prevailing influence.

The most
illuminating example of the relation of Hua-yen to Lao-Chuang philosophy in this respect
can be found in Ch’eng-kuan.At the beginning of his encyclopaedic commentary on the
Avata^msaka-suutra, he explains the dharmadhaatu in Taoist terms,

p.289

“wonderful subtleties”:

Going
and coming have no limit; moving and stillness are from one source. It contains all the
wonderful subtleties and still more, and is beyond words and thoughts and transcends them.
Such is nothing but the dharmadhaatu![30]

A few passages later
he again adopts the Taoist phrase “manifold mystery”
or “mystery of
mysteries.” As to the source of these phrases,
Ch’eng-kuan admits that they are from Lao Tzu and
Chuang Tzu, and in his own sub-commentary he quotes the whole of the first chapter of the
Tao-te-ching to show the original meaning of the phrases.

One very interesting
thing to note here is that Ch’eng-kuan, while
acknowledging his debt to Taoist philosophy,[31]still
argues that it is only in terminology, not in meaning as such. He says, “Although we borrow their terms, we do not accept their meanings.”[32]As an example, he takes the concept
of mystery or hsuan-miao.[33]In Taoism, he
argues, it refers to “vacuity and naturalness”
while in Hua-yen it means “the one true dharmadhaatu.”

B) The Idea
of “Returning”

As a second element of Taoist influence on Hua-yen we
can consider the idea of “returning to the source.” Throughout the Hua-yen writings it is found that the dharmadhaatu
or the Ultimate is designated as the “source,”
“origin,” “original
source,” “true

p.290

source,” “unique source” and the like.[34]As the proper relationship to this source, the Hua-yen thinkers
suggest “returning.” Therefore, very frequently we come across terms such as “returning to the dharmadhaatu,”“returning to the one
true dharmadhaatu,” “returning to the origin and
returning to the source,” “giving up the
derivative and returning to the original,” and so
on.[35]In the case of Fa-tsang, one of his essays is titled “The Insight into the Returning to the Source by Exhausting the
False.”[36]Returning
to the source is likewise a spiritual goal and in itself enlightenment for Hua-yen
Buddhists.

It is of course true
that the idea of “source” is traceable even to Indian Buddhism. The reality expressed in such
terms as alaayavij~naana or tathagataagarbha, for example, could be understood as the “source” in the sense that
from it all phenomenal things come into existence. But the idea that the myriad
things “return” to the source is hardly found in Indian Buddhism, and particularly
the fact that the spiritual goal is spoken of in terms of “returning to the source” has
no direct counterpart in India. In Indian Buddhism, the way of enlightenment is
primarily purifying or getting rid of discriminative mental fabrications superimposed upon
Reality, rather than returning to it.[37]

p.291

On the other hand,
the idea of returning or reversion (fan, huan, kuei, or fu) to the source or root is the
most important leitmotiv of Taoist philosophy, especially in Lao Tzu.[38] “All things flourish,” it is
said in the Tao-te-ching, “but each one returns to
its root. This returning to its root means tranquillity.”[39]It might not be too much, therefore,
to say that this line of thinking in Hua-yen is, at least in inspiration, largely Taoist,
and further that when Hua-yen was talking about “returning
to the source” or to the dharmadhaatu as its
spiritual ideal, it was actually speaking of a Buddhist message within an indigenous
Taoist pattern of thinking.

C) T’i -yung or Essence and Function

A third, and probably the most fundamental
element of Taoist influence on the Hua-yen system can be found in their use of the
traditional Taoist dichotomy of t’i (essence) and
yung (function). The idea of t’i-yung occurs
repeatedly in the writings of the Hua-yen patriarchs, especially those of Fa-tsang and his
followers, as one of the basic categories in elaborating their theories.[40]This dichotomy of t’i and
yung, according to W. Liebenthal, is the pattern which is “fundamental in all Chinese thinking.”[41]Strictly speaking, however, this t’i-yung is originally derived from Taoist philosophy.

p.292

It was the Neo-Taoist Wang
Pi (C.E. 226~249) who used the term in the metaphysical sense for the first time in the
history of Chinese thought.[42]Ever since he
interpreted the thirty-eighth chapter of the Tao-te-ching in terms of t’i-yung, this has become the basic principle for explaining the
relation between reality and its manifestations. On this point, Wing-tsit Chan aptly says:

The
concept of substance [t’i] and function [yung] first
mentioned here, were to play a very great role in Neo-Taoism, Buddhism, and
Neo-Confucianism.... In fact, the Chinese have conceived everything to be in the
relationship of substance (the nature of a thing), and function (its various
applications).[43]

Needless to say, the
Hua-yen usage of t’i-yung is not identical with that
of Taoists. For examples, whereas for Wang Pi, t’i-yung
was used basically to refer to “non-being,”[44]for Fa-tsang t’i-yung was adopted not only to show the dual aspect of essence and
its various functions or manifestations, but primarily to explain the cardinal Hua-yen
idea of mutual identification and interpenetration.[45]

But regardless of
whether the content might be different from the traditional Chinese understanding, the
fact is that the “pattern of t’i-yung,” which Liebenthal
describes as “dynamic,” became an integral part of the Hua-yen philosophy. This becomes
especially evident when it is taken into consideration that the general Buddhist pattern
in this respect is the famous triad of t’i-hsiang-

p.293

yung or
essence-characteristic-function. Although this is mentioned from time to time,[46]the t’i-yung pattern is
predominant. It should, however, be remembered that in Hua-yen philosophy the
dynamic aspect of t’i-yung was so intensified that
not only the relationship between essence and its manifestations but also those between
one manifestation and the other manifestation were equally, if not more, emphasized.

D) Li-shih or
Noumenon and Phenomenon

In addition to the idea of t’i-yung, the question of li-shih should be mentioned in this
connection. As was stated previously, li-shih was one of the key terms in the Hua-yen
system. The interrelationship of the li and shih aspects of the dharmadhaatu was the whole
point of Hua-yen philosophy from the beginning to the end. Even with a first glance,
it is easily discernible that the attempt to grasp the dharmadhaatu in terms of li and
shih is an unmistakable reminder of the thought pattern of the Tao-te-ching which tries to
see the Tao in terms of the two aspects of non-being (wu) and being (yu).[47]And if one traces this concept in the history of Chinese thought,
one can see even more clearly that it is essentially Taoist in origin and inspiration.

As a matter of fact,
the concept of li-shih, especially the concept of li, has been one of the most important
ideas in Chinese thought in general.[48]The term li in the
sense of principle or noumenon does not occur in the ancient Confucian classics. According
to Wing-tsit Chan, li was used in the sense of principle for the first time in the Mo-tzu
(c. 4th c. B.C.).[49]But because the Moist

p.294

movement soon declined in
the fourth century B.C., there was no significant advance in the Moist philosophy. The
early development of the concept, therefore, was mostly due to Taoist philosophy.

In the Tao-te-ching,
the term li itself does not appear, but in the Chuang-tzu it appears thirty-eight times.
Here in the Chuang-tzu, for the first time in Chinese history li was connected with the
Tao. Moreover, the Principle of Heaven is contrasted with human affairs which is “anticipating the sharp contrast of principle [li] and facts in
Chinese Buddhism.”[50]

Although there were
some developments in Hsun-tzu (c. 313~238 B.C.), a Confucian who is said to have lived
immediately after Chuang-tzu, and in some others,[51]the
idea of li as the universal principle was most fully discussed by the Neo-Taoists Wang Pi
and Kuo Hsiang (d. 312). Both of them interpreted the Tao in terms of li, and for
them li was “universal principle,”“necessary principle,”
“principle by which things are as they are,” “ultimate principle” etc.[52]However, while Kuo Hsiang advocated the immanent and plural li,
Wang Pi upheld the transcendental, absolute li, and it was through Wang Pi that the
development of the concept of li took place in Buddhism during the next several centuries.

Such a Taoist
understanding of li and shih was introduced into Chinese Buddhist philosophy by Chih-tun
(314~366) and developed by Hui-yuan (334~416), Seng-chao (384~414) and Tao-sheng (c.
360~434).[53]It is apparent, therefore, that the Hua-yen concept of li and shih
stems basically from this line of tradition.

p.295

IV.
Conclusion

Although we may, of course, continue to
enumerate more parallels between Hua-yen and Taoist philosophy,[54]we have discussed only some of the most concrete and discernible
Taoist elements which might have been a source from which the Hua-yen school could derive
the directions and patterns for its reshaping process of Indian Buddhist ideas in China.
In conclusion, it may be appropriate to make some observations.

First, when we say, “A was influenced by B,” this
does not necessarily mean that “similarities”
between A and B are the only issue. Naturally, such
similarities may come about in the process of interaction and influence, but they are not
the whole point. The more relevant point here is to see how one stream of thought can
serve as a “stimulus” in the development of the other stream of thought. Stimulating is
far from imprinting or reproducing the likeness of another thing. Although stimulated or
influenced by something or somebody, the development may still be carried out within one’s own intrinsic logic and structure. This seems to be the

p.296

case with the interaction
of Hua-yen Buddhism and Taoist philosophy. Hua-yen was influenced by Taoist philosophy,
but obviously Hua-yen is not identical with Taoism in every respect.

Second, in Ch’eng-kuan’s statement that
although he borrowed Taoist terms, he did not accept their meanings, we actually find the
basic attitude of the Hua-yen school toward the indigenous Chinese religio-philosophical
traditions. We do not know to what extent his statement corresponds to actual fact, but it
is clearly seen here how they understood their position in the history of Chinese thought.
This is to say that the two-fold effort of preserving the peculiarity of Buddhist Hua-yen
thought and yet at the same time adopting a Chinese way of expression was inevitable if
they were to gain a footing on Chinese soil.

Finally, when one
deals with the history of a certain idea, it is often impossible to know the exact source
of it, because an idea enriched by various systems of thought cannot be traced to one
single source. One may, therefore, rather ask for one of several possible stimuli which
could have given birth to such an idea. With such a qualification, it may be safe to
say that the Taoist philosophy was one, and possibly the most significant, stimulus which
helped Hua-yen, during the Sui-T’ang period, to
develop into a Buddhist school which was characteristically Chinese.

道家對華嚴宗的影響

──中國佛教漢化的一例

吳剛男
麗佳娜大學宗教學系教授

p.297

提要

[1] See Arthur
F. Wright, Buddhism in Chinese History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959).
A similar division of Chinese Buddhist history is found in Daijo Tokiwa, Shina Bukkyo no
Kenkyu (A Study of Chinese Buddhism) (Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1942), vol. III. For an
extensive study on the early stage of Chinese Buddhist history, see E. Zurcher, The
Buddhist Conquest of China (Leiden: E.J. Brill, rev. ed., 1972).

[4]
See, for example, D. T.Suzuki, The Essence of Buddhism (Kyoto: Hozokan, 1968), p.54, where
he says that Hua-yen is “the climax of Buddhist
thought which has been developing in the Far East for the last two thousand years.” His somewhat exaggerated statement is found in Studies in
Zen, ed. Christmas Humphreys (New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1955), p.139, where he
says, “Fa-tsang’s systematization of [Hua-yen] ideas . . . is one of the wonderful
achievements performed by the Chinese mind and is of the highest importance to the history
of world thought.” Cf. also Garma C. C. Chang, The
Buddhist Teaching of Totality (University Park: the Pennsylvania State University, 1971),
p.ix, in which he says that “of all Buddhist Schools──Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantra alike” the one which “truly holds
the highest teaching of Buddhism” is the Hua-yen
school of China.

[6]
Concerning the new situations of this time which might have helped the reshaping process
of Buddhism in general, see Reimon Yuki, “Zuito
jidai ni okeru Chugoku-teki Bukkyo Seiritsu no Jijo ni tsuite no Kosatsu” (Consideration of the Historical Situations for the Rise of Chinese
Buddhism in the Sui-T’ang Period), Nihon
Bukkyogakkai Nempo, XIX (1954), pp.79-96. See also my A Study of Chinese Hua-yen Buddhism
(unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, McMaster University, 1976), pp.53-69.

[7]
The question of the Buddhist influence on Chinese culture in general is dealt with in such
studies as Hu Shih, “The Indianization of China: A
Case Study of Cultural Borrowing,” in Independence,
Convergence and Borrowing in Institutions, Thought and Art, Harvard Tercenteniary
Publications (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937), pp.219-246; P.C. Bagchi, India
and China: A Thousand Years of Cultural Relations, the second revised and enlarged edition
(Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1971) and his “Indian Influence on Chinese Thought” in Raddhakrishnan ed., History of Philosophy, Eastern and Western,
vol. 1, pp.573-589; A. F. Wright, Buddhism in Chinese History, op. cit., especially
chapter six “The Legacy Buddhism in China,”
and his article “Buddhism
and Chinese Culture: Phases of Interaction,” Journal
of Asian Studies, XVII (19S7), pp.22 ff.; and E. Zurcher, Buddhist Conquest of China, op.
cit. For the question of the Hua-yen influence on the history of Chinese thought, see my
thesis, pp.239-260 and references therein.

[8]
For a good study of Hua-yen see Francis H. Cook, Fa-Tsang’s Treatise on the Five Doctrine──An Annotated Translation (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The University
of Wisconsin, 1970). See also his Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra
(University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977). Steve Odin,
Process Metaphysics and Hua-yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration vs.
Interpenetration (Albany: SUNY Press, 1982). Garma C.C. Chang’s above-cited book is also on Hua-yen. See also my article “Dharmadhaatu: An Introduction of Hua-yen Buddhism,” The Eastern Buddhist, New Series vol. XII, no.2 (October 1979).
For a study of the development of Hua-yen thought, see my thesis.

[10]
There are three Chinese translations in the name of Ta-fang-kuang-fo hua-yen-ching. 1)
T.9, no. 278, tr. by Buddhabhadra in sixty fascicles during 418-420; 2) T.10, no.
279 , by `Siksaananda in eighty fascicles during 695-699; and 3) T.10, no. 293, by
Praj~naa in forty fascicles during 795-798. The last one is basically equivalent to
the last chapter of the previous versions, i.e., the Chapter on Entering into
Dharmadhaatu. This chapter is available in Sanskrit as an independent sutra called
Ga.ndavyuha-suutra, one ed. by D. T.Suzuki and H. Idzumi (Kyoto: The Sanskrit Buddhist
Texts Publishing Society, 1934-36), and the other ed. by P. L. Vaidya, Buddhist Sanskrit
Texts, no. 5 (Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post Graduate Studies and Research in
Sanskrit Learning, 1960).

[11]
To be exact, it should be called the “dharmadhaatu-pratiityasamutpaada”
doctrine. But for the sake of convenience, it will be
referred to as dharmadhaatu doctrine hereafter.

[12]
The text is not found separately in the Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo. (hereafter referred to as
T.) but contained in the commentaries of Ch’eng-kuan
and Tsung-mi (T. 45, pp.672a-684b; 684b-692b), and it also constitutes a part of Fa-tsang’s work Hua-yen Fa-p’u-ti-hsin-chang
(T. 45, pp.652a-654a).

[13]
For the discussion on the controversial question of the authorship, see K. Kimura, “Who was the Author of the Fa-chieh-kuan-men” (in Japanese), Shukyo Kenkyu, 41-195 (1968), pp.47-74, R. Yuki, “Kegon no Shoso Tojin to Hokkai Kanmon no Chosha tono Mondai”
(The Question of the Founder of the Hua-yen school, Tu-shun
and the Author of the Fa-chieh-kuan-men), Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu, XVIII, 2 (1969),
pp.32-38, and references therein.

[20]
This is not to assert an advocating of a-morality or immorality on the level of everyday
life. It is simply to indicate that Hua-yen insight is beyond the common-sense moral
value. It is, as it were, supra-moral but not contra-moral.

[25]
Tao-te-ching, ch. 1. The phrase “the mystery
of mysteries” found in Fung, op. cit., vol. I,
p.178, seems to fit to our context. Cf. Wing-tsit Chan, The Way of Lao Tzu (Indianapolis:
The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1963), p.97. Chan translated the phrase as “deeper and more profound.”
He intentionally avoided the word “mystery”
because he believed that the word is associated with “irrationality.” See op.
cit., p.9. But “mystery” in the true sense of the word is not something irrational or
occult, but “non-rational” or “supra-rational” and beyond logical or empirical conceptualization. Cf. Rudolf Otto,
Mysticism, East and West (New York, 1932, 1962), p.159 and W. James, The Varieties of
Religious Experience (London, 1912) pp.379ff.

[26]
For the same idea of hsuan, see also Tao-te-ching, chs. 6, 10, 15 et passim.

[33]
Hsuan and miao are similar in meaning. Both of these have the meaning of being profound,
subtle, deep, dark, wonderful, etc. Therefore, these two characters here may denote one
single concept of mystery.

[42]
For the historical development of the t’i-yung idea,
see Kenji Shimada, ‘Taiyo no rekishi ni yosete”
(A Contribution to the History of the Concept of T’i-yung) in Essays on the History of Buddhism presented to Professor
Zenryu Tsukamoto (Kyoto: Naigai Printing Co., 1961), pp.416-430. Here he mentions
Hsun Tzu as the first user of the term itself. Liebenthal and Chan, however, agree that
Wang Pi is the first who used the term in a metaphysical sense.

[50]
Ibid., p.49. Chan further says, “the book mentions
more than once the great li (ta-li) and that li is common to all things (t’ung li). Thus li is not only a principle but a universal one.
It ‘cannot be seen,’ ‘cannot be named,’ and ‘infinite and without limit.’
In other words, it is absolute.”

[54]
See, for example, Chuang Tzu’s idea of “the equality of things and opinions” (chi-wu-lun), i.e., the transcendence of all the duality and
distinctions, which has a strikingly similar counterpart in Hua-yen. See also such
parallels as Chuang Tzu’s description of Tao in
terms of chou, pien, and han or hsien and Tu-shun’s
approach to dharmadhaatu in terms of chou, pien, han and yung; Chuang Tzu’s understanding of “change”
and Hua-yen emphasis on “function” or “process”; Lao Tzu’s invitation to the experience of the Non-being or the Unnameable
and Hua-yen stress on the insight into the dharmadhaatu; Taoist attitude that “there is nothing in the world which is not good” and Hua-yen understanding of the phenomenal world as one through
which the deeper dimension of spiritual insight in the Real can be attained; and the like.
Cf. Fung, op. cit., pp.223, 230ff., and 236; Chan, A Source Book, op. cit., pp.179ff.;
Burton Watson, tr., op. cit., pp.240ff., Mair, tr. P.217, etc. Although these are
surprisingly similar to each other, there is no way, to my present knowledge, to verify
whether or not, or to what extent, these are the results of the Taoist influence on
Hua-yen thought.